Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 6098621" data-attributes="member: 60332">having an established field leader was never a "thing" in my experience and the occasional, nominal leader could be any class. group dynamics should be decided on a case by case basis and not by the fact that one player decided to play the Caesar class.sure, some groups may not mind the implied hierarchy and military overtones but as far as I'm concerned, a class concept that requires other PCs to be his "squad" to work is flawed. at least the cleric's teammates don't need to join his faith to benefit from the buffs and healing.to be honest I never really got the Ranger as a class and think the Paladin is redundant unless you make the cleric more priesty and less "holy warrior". so I wouldn't mind them being relegated to multiclass builds but we both know they won't be because they are iconic parts of dnd in a way the Warlord never was.but my point was really that, as you said yourself, the Warlord wasn't supposed to be an "amazing athlete who's reached the height of prowess at physical combat" like the Fighter and yet most examples that could pass for dnd Warlords are just that (Captain America is "very competent in a fight, among the best", Arthur is a great warrior on his own...) or have otherwise formidable skills on top of leading (Odysseus is a super strong archer and one sneaky bastard, Gandalf is an angelic wizard…)</blockquote>